(e) Manner of sludge disposal – The determination of the manner of disposal or use of sludge is a local determination, except that it shall be unlawful for any person to dispose of sludge from a publicly owned treatment works or any other treatment works treating domestic sewage for any use for which regulations have been established pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, except in accordance with such regulations.”

1-(a) (b) FEDERAL REGISTER – PREAMBLE TO PART 503

FEDERAL REGISTER - VOLUME 58, No. 32 - Friday, February 19, 1993

PREAMBLE TO THE PART 503 SLUDGE RULES -- COMMENTS ON THE “LOCAL CONTROL” ISSUE:

Page 9251 - “Preserve a Local Community’s Choice of a Disposal Practice.

Although the Agency prefers local communities to use their sewage sludge for its beneficial properties rather than simply disposing of it, EPA’s responsibility is to set standards for each practice that are adequate to protect public health and the environment.

Page 9261 - “Section 405(d)(5) also provides that nothing in the section is intended to waive more stringent requirements in the CWA or any other law. This means that States AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES remain free to impose more stringent requirements than those included in today’s rule.

In addition, as described later in the preamble, where EPA has established requirements applicable to sewage sludge under other statutes, compliance with regulations established under those states also constitutes compliance with part 503.

Section 405(e) was further amended to read as follows:

The determination of the manner of disposal for use of sludge is a LOCAL DETERMINATION, except that it shall be unlawful for any person to dispose of sludge from a publicly owned treatment works or any other treatment works treating domestic sewage for any use for which regulations have been established pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, except in accordance with such regulations.”- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Page 9262 - State Requirements - The information on existing State requirements summarized below was gathered as part of EPA’s effort in developing guidance for writing sewage sludge interim permits prior to promulgation of the part 503 standards.

Under section 510 of the CWA, States, political subdivisions of States and interstate agencies retain the authority to adopt or enforce more stringent standards than those provided in today’s part 503 regulations.”

Page 9325 - “Although EPA encourages the beneficial use of sewage sludge (e.g. through land application), the selection of a sewage sludge use or disposal practice, whether land application or some other use or disposal practice, IS A LOCAL DETERMINATION (e.g. the responsibility of the municipality or authority responsible for the use or disposal of sewage sludge).

2 - 40 CFR Part 503 (federal sludge rules) Sec. 503.5(b) a political subdivision of a state may impose requirements for use or disposal of sewage sludge more stringent than part 503 rule. (“political subdivisions” of a state include cities, towns, counties, townships, etc.)

40 CFR Part 503.6 “(b) Selection of a use or disposal practice. This part does not require athe selection of a sewage sludge use or disposal practice. The determination of the manner in which sewage sludge is used or disposed is a local determination.”

2(a) – 40CFR Part 501 -- State sludge management program regulations = local law can be more stringent

(i) Nothing in this part precludes a State or political subdivisionthereof, or interstate agency, from adopting or enforcing requirementsestablished by State or local law that are more stringent or moreextensive than those required in this part or in any other federalstatute or regulation.

3 - A PLAIN ENGLISH GUIDE TO THE EPA PART 503 BIOSOLIDS RULE:http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biosolids/503pe/ :

4 - Page 2 - LOCAL REGULATIONS may be more stringent than the Federal part 503 rule.

5 - Page 12 - Exclusions from Part 503 - Part 503 does NOT include requirements for theselection of a biosolids use or disposal practice. The determination of the biosolids use or disposal practice is a LOCAL DECISION.

6 - Page 23 - EPA says “if allowed under state law, municipalities also may regulate the use and disposal of biosolids within their borders.”

[I disagree with EPA’s implication that states may preempt local authority - “if allowed” - The Clean Water Act does NOT make “local determination” conditional upon permission from the State . . . nor does it make “local determination” subject to approval, usurpation, preemption or recision by the State.}

7 - EPA sludge office tells EPA Office of Inspector General investigation of health impacts from sludge is NOT an EPA responsibility, but the responsibility of NIOSH, CDC AND LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS.

EPA sludge office tells EPA Office of Inspector General to revise their report to include the following statement:

“The Agency does support beneficial reuse of biosolids, but IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LOCAL DECISIONS REGARDING USE AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS . . . “

8 - Nov. 2001 - EPA sludge office tells Wisconsin Sludge/Biosolids Coordinator “ . . . it is the responsibility of LOCAL GOVERNMENT to make LOCAL DECISIONS regarding use and disposal options (of sewage sludge) that are consistent with the Part 503 rule.”

[Part 503.5(b) of federal sludge rule provides that cities, towns, counties and townships may impose requirements for use or disposal of sewage sludge more stringent than part 503 rule.)

10- June 26, 2002 - Robert Bastian of US EPA agrees “IT WAS ALSO CLEARLYSTATED THAT . . . LOCAL COMMUNITIES REMAIN FREE TO IMPOSE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS . . . “

11 - National Research Council - “Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards andPractices” - July 2, 2002 - Page 18 - Reiteration of 1996 NRC Recommendations:“ . . . local units of government (should) have the necessary REGULATORYAUTHORITY to take corrective actions against parties who have violated rulesand guidance.”

16 – Water Environment Federation October 29, 2003, letter to CBS News says “The regulations allow each LOCAL COMMUNITY to make its own choices about management of biosolids “

17 – July 10, 2003 – G. Tracy Mehan, EPA Ass’t Administrator – letter to Virginia Senator John Warner – “The decision of which use or disposal practice to use is a local decision. Once that local decision is made, the biosolids must be managed to comply with EPA regulations.”

18 – 19 New York Times – Jan. 3, 2004: – EPA won’t say sludge is “safe” – supports local control – acknowledges need for more scientific research and no longer promotes land application over other disposal methods “"We are not promoting one approach over another," Ben Grumbles, the acting assistant administrator of the agency's office of water, said of the various choices. "We are promoting local choice. We believe the current sewage sludge regulations are adequately protective of human health in the environment."

Pages 20 – 22 July – Oct. 2004 – EPA reaffirms to state sludge biosolids coordinators that it supports local control and no longer promotes land application over other disposal methods such as incineration or landfilling – see item (I) below . . .

Pages 28 -31 - REVERSE PREEMPTION – SINCE THE CONGRESS AND FEDERAL LAW CLEARLY SAY SLUDGE USE OR DISPOSAL IS A LOCAL OPTION, federal law trumps state law and preempts ANY state law which attempts to prevent communities from enacting local ordinances when facing the issue of being forced to serve as disposal sites for toxic/pathogenic sewage sludge from urban and industrial sources.

Item (I) Here is the link to the National Biosolids Partnership web site, along with 4 recent letters . . . two from Wisconsin sludge biosolids officials to US EPA and two replies from US EPA.

"The policy shift that occurred at EPA in early 2000, was significant and very disconcerting to the implementers of the regulations in the field." (Kester is referring to the EPA position of "neutrality" on the use or disposal of biosolids that was adopted at US EPA internally in early 2000 when EPA discontinued promoting land spreading of sewage sludge over landfilling or incineration.)

Kester goes on to say: "It appears that upper management in EPA believes that no preferred disposition alternative should be stated and is reluctant to defend its own regulations."

Kester concludes: " . . . as regulators believe that the Agency has officially shifted from a confirmed position of promoting beneficial use as a sustainable environmental solution to one of neutrality, we appeal to you to reverse that position back to promoting beneficial use. This does not mean that EPA or a State would mandate decisions at the local level.”

"We are also requesting that you reissue an official statement that beneficial use of biosolids through land application or public distribution is preferable as a sustainable environmental solution, all other things being equal, to disposal in a landfill or incinerator combustion."

"We should be clear that we are not asking that any regulatory agency interfere with local decisions , but that a general preference be articulated as preferred policy."

Letter 9/20/04 from EPA to Greg Kester, Wisconsin

"In the letter, you stated your concern and opinion that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should abandon a position of neutrality on the methods for biosolids use or disposal."

"EPA supports the reuse of wastewater and the beneficial reuse of biosolids as viable options available to communities, but firmly believes that any decisions regarding those choices are local decisions subject to meeting State regulations in addition to Federal regulations."

"The NRC report issued in July 2002 concluded that, although there is no documented scientific evidence that the 503 regulations have failed to protect public health, further scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids."

"The Part 503 regulations outline the use and disposal practices that publicly owned treatment works may select in their management of biosolids: land application - land filling or surface disposal - and incineration. Based on the technical and scientific record, and as explained in the response to Greg Kester's letter, EPA believes that the 40 CFR Part 503 regulations are protective of public health and the environment."

"As to the request that EPA should issue a statement favoring the beneficial reuse of biosolids over other uses, we do not believe that EPA should be involved in determining the biosolids management options most suitable for a particular community." "Just as EPA does not require or expressly recommend that communities treat their wastewater to reuse standards and reuse it, or require particular technologies of municipal or industrial permittees to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits, we do not require or expressly recommend that communities choose beneficial reuse of biosolids."

"EPA supports the reuse of wastewater and the beneficial reuse of biosolids as viable options available to communities, but firmly believes that any decisions regarding those choices are local decisions subject to meeting State regulations in addition to Federal regulations."

Here are some points that should be made to state regulators -- particularly those in states such as Maine, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia where the waste industry has sued localities and encourages officials to preempt unwilling communities and bully them into being disposal sites for toxic/pathogenic sludge from urban and industrial sources:

The US EPA has very specifically stated its “neutrality” and does NOT favor land spreading of sewage sludge biosolids over other disposal options such as surface disposal, land filling and/or incineration.

The US EPA supports the right of LOCAL communities to make decisions as to the use or disposal of sewage sludge biosolids within their boundaries.

(3) The US EPA is finally acknowledging the National Research Council findings in 2002 which say there is persistent uncertainty about potential for adverse health effects from sludge spreading and a great deal more scientific research is needed before sludge can be pronounced “safe”. This is in stark contrast to claims by the waste industry and some state officials that studies " prove" land spreading of sewage sludge biosolids poses no risks to human health and the environment.

EPA REAFFIRMS TO STATE SLUDGE COORDINATORS THAT IT SUPPORTS LOCAL CONTROL AND NO LONGER PROMOTES LAND APPLICATION OVER OTHER SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS

Frank:Composters and State/Local regulatory authorities are free to imposemore stringent requirements on biosolids, biosolids processing/treatmentsuch as composting, and finished biosolids composts. Less stringentmeasures are considered not to be in compliance with the part 503Standards and is not allowed.

As I said before, any amendments to the part 503 Standards must be doneby EPA in Notice and comment rulemaking.

This is a very important court ruling as it specifically cites the federal Clean Water Act as authorizing local control over land spreading of sewage sludge biosolids :"Under the federal Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to approve state sludge management programs. 33 U.S.C. § 1345 (2000); 40 C.F.R. § 501.1(b). States must meet the minimum requirements set forth under the federal regulations to gain approval. 40 C.F.R. § 501.1(c). The regulations provide that:Nothing in this part precludes a State or political subdivision thereof . . . from adopting or enforcing requirements established by State or local law that are more stringent or more extensive than those required in this part or in any other federal statute or regulation."http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2004/thaye134.htmhttp://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE___________________________BelknapNo. 2003-421Nathaniel S. Thayerv.Town of TiltonArgued: May 19, 2004Opinion Issued: November 30, 2004

PAGE 67Congress Authorized Local Sewage Sludge OrdinancesCongress has not been silent on the issue of local regulation of the land application of sewage sludge. Specifically, the Clean Water Act authorizes some degree of local control over the use and disposal of sewage sludge so long as federal regulatory standards are met:“The determination of the manner of disposal or use of sludge is a local determination, except that it shall be unlawful for any person to dispose of sludge from a publicly owned treatment works or any other treatment works treating domestic sewage for any use for which regulations have been established pursuant to subsection (d) of this section, except in accordance with such regulations.” (33 U.S.C.A. § 1345(e).)The regulations of the EPA reiterate this aspect of local control:

“Nothing in this part precludes a State or political subdivision thereof … from imposing requirements for the use or disposal of sewage sludge more stringent than the requirements in this part or from imposing additional requirements for the use or disposal of sewage sludge.” (40 C.F.R. § 503.5(b) (2005).)

“Where state or local government action is specifically authorized by Congress, it is not subject to the Commerce Clause even if it interferes with interstate commerce. Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 769 … (1945).” (Ibid.) As the United States Supreme Court has noted, however, “for a state regulation to be removed from the reach of the dormant Commerce Clause, congressional intent must be unmistakably clear.” (South-Central Timber Dev. v. Wunnicke (1984) 467 U.S. 82, 91.)

Page 68 - It is unmistakably clear that Congress intended “the manner of disposal or use of sludge [to be] a local determination” so long as minimum federal standards were met. (33 U.S.C.A. § 1345(e).) It is equally clear that the restriction in Ordinance G‑6638—that only sewage sludge meeting the heightened treatment standards can be applied to land in Kern County—reflects a local determination of the manner of disposal or use of sewage sludge.(73) Thus, the heightened treatment standards are the type of local regulation expressly authorized by the Clean Water Act. (Cf. Welch, supra, 888 F.Supp. at p. 760 [ordinance banning the land application of sewage sludge permissible under Clean Water Act].) Because Congress authorized a local ban on the land application of sewage sludge (Welch, supra, at pp. 757-758), one can strongly infer that Congress also authorized local governments to impose a lesser burden on commerce such as the heightened treatment standards in provision 8.05.040(A) of Ordinance G‑6638. (See Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. (1986) 478 U.S. 328, 345-346 [the greater power to ban an activity necessarily includes the lesser power to impose conditions on the activity].)

[73]Plaintiffs argue the statutory phrase “local determination” refers only to the decisions made by a wastewater treatment agency and excludes ordinances adopted by land use agencies such as County. We reject this statutory construction because, among other things, it cannot be reconciled with the EPA’s regulation concerning local imposition of requirements for the use or disposal of sewage sludge. (See 40 C.F.R. § 503.5(b) (2005).)Page 70: In this context, discrimination means “differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.” (Ibid.)Ordinance G‑6638 does not on its face discriminate against interstate commerce, because its provisions apply to the land application of all sewage sludge regardless of its geographical origin. (See Goldfarb, Sewage Sludge, supra, 26 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L.Rev. at p. 722 [“local ordinance upheld in Welch banned all land application of sewage sludge, not just sewage sludge generated out-of-state”].)

Page 71: Therefore, the correct comparison is between the impact of the ordinance on sewage sludge generated outside the jurisdictional authority of County and the impact on sewage sludge generated within that area.

Page 73: . Because Congress has specifically and unmistakably authorized nondiscriminatory local ordinances like Ordinance G‑6638, our analysis of the dormant commerce clause need not consider “whether the ordinance imposes a burden on interstate commerce that is ‘clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits,’ Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 … (1970).” (C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, supra, 511 U.S. at p. 390.) Application of the Pike test is inappropriate in this case because the enactment of the Clean Water Act reflects a determination by Congress that local regulation is appropriate, which necessarily implies that localities have a legitimate purpose in regulating the use and disposal of sewage sludge within their jurisdictional boundaries and that the local benefits from such a regulation outweigh any nondiscriminatory burdens on interstate commerce that might result.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of theCourt, except as to Part II–D.

e-page 3

"It is not the office of the Commerce Clause to control the voters’ decision in this regard. The Court is particularly hesitant to interfere here because waste disposal is typically and traditionally a function of local government exercising its police power. Nothing in the Commerce Clause vests the responsibility vests the responsibility for such a policy judgment with the Federal Judiciary. "

e-page 15

“We should be particularly hesitant to interfere with theCounties’ efforts under the guise of the Commerce Clausebecause “[w]aste disposal is both typically and traditionallya local government function.” 261 F. 3d, at 264 (casebelow) (Calabresi, J., concurring); see USA Recycling, Inc.v. Town of Babylon, 66 F. 3d 1272, 1275 (CA2 1995) (“Forninety years, it has been settled law that garbage collectionand disposal is a core function of local government inthe United States”); M. Melosi, Garbage in the Cities:Refuse, Reform, and the Environment, 1880–1980, pp.153–155 (1981). Congress itself has recognized local government’s vital role in waste management, making clearthat “collection and disposal of solid wastes should continueto be primarily the function of State, regional, andlocal agencies.” Resource Conservation and Recovery Actof 1976, 90 Stat. 2797, 42 U. S. C. §6901(a)(4). “

e-page 18

The Counties’ ordinances are exercises of the policepower in an effort to address waste disposal, a typical andtraditional concern of local government.

US CODE: TITLE 42,6903. DEFINITIONSTITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE/CHAPTER 82 - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL/SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS § 6903. DefinitionsAs used in this chapter:

(26A) The term “sludge” means any solid, semisolid or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility or any other such waste having similar characteristics and effects.

(27) The term “solid waste” means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities . . .

****************************************************************

Pages 28 -31 - REVERSE PREEMPTION – SINCE THE CONGRESS AND FEDERAL LAW CLEARLY SAY SLUDGE USE OR DISPOSAL IS A LOCAL OPTION, federal law trumps state law and preempts ANY state law which attempts to prevent communities from enacting local ordinances when facing the issue of being forced to serve as disposal sites for toxic/pathogenic sewage sludge from urban and industrial sources.

According to LectLaw, Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme."

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." If Congress expressly provides for exclusive federal dominion or if it expressly provides for concurrent federal-state jurisdiction, the task of the Court is simplified, though, of course, there may still be doubtful areas in which interpretation will be necessary.

Preemption of state and local laws in the United StatesFrom TheBestLinks.comIn the United States federal statutes can limit the state's powers by invalidating conflicting state and local laws. One way that this can be achieved is by Congress passing a law, preempting state or local law. State powers can also be limited by the Supremacy Clause.Article VI, section 2 of the United States Constitution states: 'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance there of: and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.' This clause is commonly referred to as the 'Supremacy Clause.' The Supremacy Clause says that federal law is the 'Supreme Law of the Land.' This means that if a state or local law is in conflict with a federal statute, the federal statute will preempt the state or local law.Two situations where preemption claims might arise: express preemption and implied preemption.Express preemption occurs where Congress says within the statute 'we hereby preempt.' Here, federal laws are explicitly precluding state and local regulations.Implied preemption has, within itself, three sub-categories: conflicts preemption, preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective, and preemption because federal law occupies the field.Conflicts preemption is where it is impossible to comply with both the federal statute and the state or local law. In this situation, the federal statute must be followed. It is, however, appropriate to have two laws, one federal and one state, that differ. The federal law, in this case, may be a minimum standard, while the state enacts a law to be more strict. State law, therefore, would not be preempted. Preemption would only occur if the federal and state laws were mutually exclusive.The second type of implied preemption is preemption because state law impedes the achievement of a federal objective. This type of preemption occurs when a state or local law interferes with a goal or objective Congress was trying to attain with a federal statute. The purpose of each law must be determined and compared to each other. If both laws are trying to achieve the same goal, federal law will preempt the state or local regulation.The final type of implied preemption is preemption because federal law occupies the field. In this situation, one must look at Congress's intent, and whether the federal law was meant to be exclusive in that area. The most common examples are in areas of foreign policy and immigration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_(law)Preemption (law)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchThis article is about the power of federal law in the United StatesIn the legal system of the United States, preemption generally refers to the displacing effect that federal law will have on a conflicting or inconsistent state law. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2) of the United States Constitution states that the Constitution and other federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land". Thus, when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law trumps--or "preempts"--the state law. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the displacing effect state laws might have on ordinances enacted by municipalities.

****************************************************************************************http://www.steefel.com/clients/news/detail.aspx?id=064da945-eb9d-4439-b5b9-05fded467e3eMarch 2, 2005Federal Law Trumps State For Arbitrators

A Panel Sides With Stock Exchanges Over Ethics Rules

By Donna Domino

THE DAILY JOURNAL - Two national stock exchanges scored a significant victory Tuesday in their fight against California's strict new ethics rules for arbitrators after a federal appeals panel found the rules are pre-empted by federal laws.

The unanimous ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by U.S. District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong of Oakland regarding the pre-emption issue. While the 9th Circuit's ruling derailed the ethics rules in securities cases, the rules remain intact for other kinds of disputes. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 03-15695.******************************************************************

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=11478567307682nd Circuit: Federal Statute Trumps State on Peer Review RecordsMark HamblettNew York Law JournalMay 18, 2006Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & PermissionsA federal statute requires the release of a medical facility's peer review records despite state law shielding their confidentiality, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.Clearing the way for the release of peer review records sought for investigations into the deaths of two mentally ill patients at state-administered hospitals, the circuit said the plain language of the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§10801-10851, trumps state law.http://www.graydon.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/news_events.newsletter_detail/object_id/b919ddfb-3a3c-42ea-ae4a-8a1d08ad976fE-Commerce NewsDownloader Pays $750 Per Song; Federal Law Trumps Minnesota Wireless StatuteJanuary 31, 2006FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS MINNESOTA WIRELESS STATUTEA state law designed to protect consumers from changes in wireless contracts is preempted by the 1934 Federal Communications Act (ironic considering that in 1934 no one could have even imagined the concept of "wireless"), according to a federal appellate court sitting in Minnesota. The court determined that the state law was preempted because it had a direct impact on the rates that providers may charge subscribers.Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute". Federal law clearly gives localities the right to regulate the use or disposal of sewage sludge in their communities. By what authority do states enact laws which usurp and preempt the ‘local control’ rights granted by Congress to local communities?